NEW DELHI– Following sustained criticism over its initial coverage of the Pahalgam massacre, The New York Times has for the first time referred to the perpetrators as “terrorists” in a headline—marking a notable shift in editorial tone. The move coincides with India’s launch of Operation Sindoor, a precision military strike targeting terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
The updated front-page headline on the NYT website read: “India Strikes Pakistan Two Weeks After Terrorist Attack in Kashmir”, a departure from previous descriptions that used softer terms such as “militants” or “gunmen.” The change comes amid mounting pressure from Indian observers, diaspora groups, and U.S. lawmakers who argued that the original language downplayed the severity of the April 22 attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Baisaran Valley, which left 26 civilians dead—25 Indian tourists and one Nepali national.
Despite the updated headline, the newspaper has drawn continued criticism for its use of terms like “Indian-administered Kashmir” and “Indian-controlled side of Kashmir” within the body of the article. Critics argue that such language aligns with Pakistan’s narrative and fails to recognize Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India.
In its report on India’s retaliatory action, the NYT acknowledged the Indian government’s assertion that it had targeted “only known terror camps” and emphasized the military operation was “measured, responsible and designed to be non-escalatory.” The article cited Indian officials who said the strikes were based on evidence linking Pakistan-based terrorists to the Pahalgam massacre.
The editorial shift was widely noted after the newspaper came under fire last month for downplaying the attack. At the time, the NYT headline—“At Least 24 Tourists Gunned Down by Militants in Kashmir”—sparked a backlash on social media, particularly after the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee reposted the headline with the word “militants” crossed out and “terrorists” written in bold red.
“Hey, @nytimes, we fixed it for you,” the Committee wrote in its post on X. “This was a TERRORIST ATTACK plain and simple. Whether it’s India or Israel, when it comes to TERRORISM, the NYT is removed from reality.”
The criticism extended beyond social media, with U.S. officials and Indian diplomats privately expressing concern that the media’s language choices minimized the atrocity. The framing of the massacre as a “shooting incident” rather than an act of terrorism, many argued, did a disservice to the victims and distorted the global understanding of the threat posed by cross-border terrorism.
As India continues to respond to the attack with what it describes as targeted, proportionate military action, scrutiny remains high not just on diplomatic and military fronts, but also on how international media frames the narrative. (Source: IANS)
